| Literature DB >> 34069312 |
Qiannan Sun1, Lingyun Zhang1, Rushui Bai1, Zimeng Zhuang1, Yunfan Zhang1, Tingting Yu1, Liying Peng1, Tianyi Xin1, Si Chen1, Bing Han1.
Abstract
Repairing tooth defects with dental resin composites is currently the most commonly used method due to their tooth-colored esthetics and photocuring properties. However, the higher than desirable failure rate and moderate service life are the biggest challenges the composites currently face. Secondary caries is one of the most common reasons leading to repair failure. Therefore, many attempts have been carried out on the development of a new generation of antimicrobial and therapeutic dental polymer composite materials to inhibit dental caries and prolong the lifespan of restorations. These new antimicrobial materials can inhibit the formation of biofilms, reduce acid production from bacteria and the occurrence of secondary caries. These results are encouraging and open the doors to future clinical studies on the therapeutic value of antimicrobial dental resin-based restoratives. However, antimicrobial resins still face challenges such as biocompatibility, drug resistance and uncontrolled release of antimicrobial agents. In the future, we should focus on the development of more efficient, durable and smart antimicrobial dental resins. This article focuses on the most recent 5 years of research, reviews the current antimicrobial strategies of composite resins, and introduces representative antimicrobial agents and their antimicrobial mechanisms.Entities:
Keywords: antimicrobial; dental materials; dental restorations; polymeric composite
Year: 2021 PMID: 34069312 PMCID: PMC8156482 DOI: 10.3390/polym13101590
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Examples of strategies for material composition modifications toward the design of antibiofilm resin-based composites. AgNPs: silver nanoparticles; MgO: magnesium oxide; CNC/ZnO: cellulose nanocrystal/zinc oxide; Zn-MSNs: zinc-doped mesoporous silica nanoparticles; m-SiO2: mesoporous silica; GNR/CHX: Gold nanorods/chlorhexidine; Fe3O4: ferroferric oxide; S-PRG: pre-reacted glass-ionomer; SSHZP: silver sodium hydrogen zirconium phosphate; QAC: quaternary ammonium compound; MDPB: 12-methacryloyloxy dodecyl pyridinium bromide; DHMAI: quaternary ammonium dimethyl-hexadecyl-methacryloxyethyl-ammonium iodide; QPEI: quaternary ammonium salt polyethyleneimine; TMQA: tetrafunctional methacrylate quaternary ammonium salt monomer; DMAHDM: quaternary ammonium dimethylaminohexadecyl methacrylate; MPC: 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine; Fmoc-F5-Phe: Fmoc-pentafluoro-l-phenylalanine-OH; NACP: amorphous calcium phosphate. NAg: nano-silver. Adapted, with permission, from [1,21,22].
Advantages and disadvantages of three antibacterial strategies.
| Name | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Antimicrobial agent release | High local doses of antimicrobial agents at specific sites, less systemic toxicity | Short-acting and compromised mechanical properties |
| Contact-dependent strategy | No adverse effects on the physical and mechanical properties of the loaded materials, improved and prolonged antibacterial activity | Relatively weak antimicrobial activity and surface biofouling |
| Multi-functional strategy | Synergistic antibacterial activity | Selection of more effective combinations |
Figure 2The possible antibacterial mechanisms of different antibacterial agents. (A): Schematic representation of antibacterial mechanism of silver nanoparticles (Nag); (B): Schematic representation of antibacterial mechanism of zinc oxide nanoparticles (NZn); (C): Schematic representation of antibacterial mechanism of quaternary ammonium polyethylenimine (QAS-PEI). Adapted, with permission, from [11].
Figure 3Schematic illustration of the use of contact antimicrobial agents in resin composites. Adapted, with permission, from [69].
Figure 4Schematic illustration of the use of 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine (MPC) in resin composites. Adapted, with permission, from [93].
Summary of synergistic antimicrobial combinations.
| Speciation | Types of Dental Composite | Microorganisms Tested | Test Method for Antimicrobial Activity | Results | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MPC, | BisGMA, | Human saliva | CFU counts; live/dead assay; MTT assay; BCA approach | Strongly deterred protein adhesion and diminished biofilm viability | [ |
| NACP, | BisGMA, | Human saliva | Live/dead staining; MTT assay; lactate analysis; CFU counts | Significantly stronger antibacterial capability than using QADM or NAg alone | [ |
| NACP, | UDMA, | Human saliva | Live/dead staining assay; CFU counts; lactate dehydrogenase enzymatic method; CV staining | Demonstrated long-term antibacterial activity. | [ |
| DMAHDM, | BisGMA, | Human saliva | Live/dead staining; MTT assay; enzymatic method; CFU counts | All the microbiological assays were substantially reduced in the presence of 5%DMAHDM | [ |
| NACP, | EBPADMA, | Human saliva | Live/dead staining; MTT assay; enzymatic method; CFU counts | NACP-DMAHM inhibited biofilms’ metabolic activity and lactic acid, and reduced biofilm colony-forming units (CFU) by 3–4 log | [ |
| NACP, | EBPADMA, | Human saliva | BCA method; live/dead staining; MTT assay; CFU counts | 3% MPC+3% DMAHDM inhibited biofilm growth and viability, reducing biofilm CFU by 3 log | [ |
| NACP, | EBPADMA, |
| Live/dead staining assay; CFU counts; lactate | NACP-DMAHM composite reduced biofilm acid, and reduced CFU by 4 log | [ |
Abbreviations: BisGMA: bisphenol glycidyl dimethacrylate; TEGDMA: triethylene glycol dimethacrylate; CFU: colony-forming units; QADM: quaternary ammonium dimethacrylate; BCA: bicinchoninic acid; UDMA: urethane dimethacrylate; TEG-DVBE: triethylene glycol divinylbenzyl ether; CV: crystal violet; EBPADMA: ethoxylated bisphenol A dimethacrylate; PMGDM: pyromellitic glycerol dimethacrylate.